More subsidies for strong independent working womyn

Working women may be given extra employment rights under plans being drawn up by Labour.

Mothers could be paid sick leave if their children are ill and given more legal rights to work part-time as the Government attempts to woo back the women’s vote in its war with David Cameron.

Oh great, so if a woman’s ill (and they take more sick leave than men) you have to pay her, and if her kid’s are ill, you have to pay her.

Furthermore, this proves how fucked the system is and why it’s largely pointless for men to make demands and appeals from political parties in the West; they couldn’t give a damn about us. If they did, they’d listen.

Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives may all be headed by men, but they are all fighting it out to hand more rights and subsidies (i.e. bribes) women to win their vote.

Companies may also have to reveal if they pay women less than men to do the same job.

And no doubt they’ll be fined or closed down regardless of whether they’re paying a woman less to do the same job because she’s working fewer hours as is frequently the case! I know plenty of women who do the same job as me but work up to three hours less a day to make the school-run. They probably get paid the same as me too.

Designed to ‘draw the battle lines with the Tories over family policy’, it will be discussed at next month’s Labour Party conference.

So the next general election will be a battle to see who can throw more of the countries rapidly diminishing resources at women and force companies to pay so much to working mothers to stay at home doing fuck all that companies will increasingly close up, move to another country or just fail to open in the first place.

All this will mean more taxes of course, meaning men will be even less able than we are now to be able to support a family on our own. So women, whether they like it or not, will have to go out to work. This is the point of course; there’s nothing politicians, especially Socialists like Labour, like more than having the entire adult population – not just men – working and paying taxes.

As someone points out in the comments at the Daily Mail’s article, it’s ironic that Labour are banging on about family-friendly policies when they’ve done all they can to demolish the family and reduce it to single mothers or lesbian couples and their illegitimate bastards, or working couples with kids raised almost entirely in daycare.

There’s a related opinion piece here which – despite some naivete like claiming feminism was about equality rather than removing women’s choices, when it was, in fact, about removing women’s choices – makes some good points:

To the likes of Ms Harman a woman who remains at home is simply a waste of ‘human capital’ on several levels. First, she is not engaged in paid employment – and therefore cannot be taxed on her earnings to the greater benefit of the public coffers.

Secondly, she does not require the help of a paid childminder or nursery teacher to look after her children, so she is depriving another worker of paid employment, thus denying the Chancellor another source of revenue.

Lastly, she does not need tax credits or childcare vouchers that might make her dependent on the Government’s beneficence to organise her affairs and thus unlikely to vote against them at future elections.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:26 AM
——————————————————————————–

At 2:05 PM, nevo said…

I shouldn’t be worrying for Miss Harman’s decisions. As an antimale politician she’ll make all sort of nonesensical decisions.
This latest one, will favor women who are in mostly in unproductive jobs (mostly government jobs) as is explained in the article itself.
As those who are in the productive sector, it is likely that, they are already enjoying the fruits of equality by working as hard as men to produce an equal right to same job same pay.
Purely cosmetic. Probably preemptying next month Labour conference. We’ll be hearing a lot from here to that conference. Just about everything on anything.
On a completely different matter now. Is it true that Heather McCartney was hounded out of the country by hate mail (likelyhood is mostly female hate mail). If so, do I assume females are rousing up against this gold digging in an attempt to save the “marriage word” from being obliterated from men’s languange?

Men, stick to it. And they’ll have no choice.

NEVO

——————————————————————————–

At 4:57 AM, Sunny Peter said…

On a completely different matter now. Is it true that Heather McCartney was hounded out of the country by hate mail (likelyhood is mostly female hate mail). If so, do I assume females are rousing up against this gold digging in an attempt to save the “marriage word” from being obliterated from men’s languange?

LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) – Heather Mills is hoping for a bigger divorce payout by going through US courts, it has been claimed.

The former model reportedly met with a top US lawyer last week, sparking reports she may pursue her divorce to Sir Paul McCartney through American courts because they offer larger settlements.

A source told Britain’s Daily Star newspaper: “Heather is prepared to listen to whatever advice she can get before making her decision.

“It might be that Heather is putting the pressure on, the last thing her husband wants is a divorce battle in the US.”

Heather has already reportedly turned down a £30 million settlement and it has been suggested she may be entitled to a quarter of Paul’s estimated £825 million fortune.

The 38-year-old blonde – who has hired Anthony Julius, the divorce lawyer of the late Princess Diana – is set to submit her divorce counter claim this week and it is believed her revelations about the couple’s four-year marriage will stun the showbiz world.

Meanwhile, Paul reportedly banned his estranged wife from collecting daughter Beatrice from his home on Tuesday (15.08.06).

Instead, Heather was forced to travel to ‘neutral territory’ and meet the two-year-old tot at a hotel, just 300 yards from the former Beatle’s East Sussex home.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:19 PM, Anonymous said…

Apparently the Bible had some things to say about Western Women 2000 years ago:

Proverbs 21:5

It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than to share a house with a contentious woman.

It is better to dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and fretful woman.